- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 15:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Saba Ahmed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. This one fails as of now. Saqib ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually politicians should be given differential treatment. Politicians use their power to change the way the world works.
Enemyofjokes (
talk)
16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Which they do by holding office, not by running for it and losing. Bearcat ( talk) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nom appears to misunderstand the rules. An politically active WP:PERSON does not have to qualify under the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. As with any topic, the basic criterion is WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Search doesn't produce any sig coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. -- Saqib ( talk) 07:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: this woman has an in-depth profile in the New York Times. And this is already in the article. Another profile in International Business Times that is already cited. Is this AFD an error? @ Saqib: did you do all of the checks in WP:BEFORE? – Lionel( talk) 08:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lionelt makes a valid point. Nom not only failed to perform WP:BEFORE, he doubled down, asserting that: "Search doesn't produce any sig coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person." But, as Lionelt points out, there was WP:SIGCOV already on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed some blunder on my part for which I'm embarrassed. I'm willing to withdraw this nom. -- Saqib ( talk) 13:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ( talk) 18:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ( talk) 18:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, but this does not make any strong claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons. The existence of a profile in The New York Times is not in and of itself a magic bullet that inherently exempts her from having to clear the deliberately high bar we set for non-winning candidates — the rule most certainly is not that a person at this level of significance clears the bar the moment one piece of extralocal coverage exists, it's that enough extralocal coverage has to exist to get her over the ten-year test as a topic of enduring significance. What I am not seeing here, however, is a credible reason to believe people will still be looking for this article in 2028. She might attain something like that in the future, certainly, and if that happens then a new article can be recreated at that time — but nothing here is a credible reason why she could be considered to have already cleared the ten-year test today. Bearcat ( talk) 18:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Per BLP1E, NPOL and NOPROMO. Subject fails 1E which is a clearly defined exception to GNG/BASIC. Subject has no other claim to notability other than her candidacy. And the article is naked WP:PROMOTION. Even if there were a claim to notability independent of her failed political career, and there isn't, we don't allow promotion or advocacy on Wikipedia, period. NOPROMO is policy and trumps notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I was going through the references, The Guardian is a major one but that was self-written op-ed. But, that still leaves The New York Times, The Oregonian, and websites such as Huffington Post. References begin 2011 until recent, so she's not 1E. Is it promotional? Then let's cut it down. Do I like it/her/what it stands for? Immaterial, per WP:JDL. I don't see how she fails WP:GNG. Ifnord ( talk) 12:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - I see more here than a mere candidacy, in fact a minority of the article is about her seeking office. It passes GNG easily. She is described more than once by major news sources as a "Muslim Republican Leader." As such, I find it likely that people doing deep historical research may search for her name in 2118. Will it be the most popular article, no it will not. But will its existence improve the encyclopedia? Yes, it will. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This one clearly passes GNG. And I don't know what promotional is in there to delete it from Wikipedia. Dial911 ( talk) 16:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep - a lot of the coverage is for one event - her wearing the American flag hijab on Fox's Megyn Kelly show - but there's been relatively little since. I found a brief appearance in 2017 from NPR [ [1]], and an appearance on CNN with Don Lemon [ [2]]. I think there's a curiosity factor - seeing a Muslim woman supporting Trump. It would be a regular keep if media coverage were more current. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a simply majority here to Keep, not a true consensus. Relisting, thusly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce Talk 21:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I see a simply majority here to Keep, not a true consensus. Relisting, thusly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce Talk 21:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per BLP1E and WP:PROMO. A difficult call since there are a few sources, but her candidacy apparently only generated one article and I'm not even counting it as the "one event" as she only got 250 votes. The remainder of the coverage is due to one self-generated event. I don't think she's far off from passing WP:GNG, but every source here is either trivial (i.e. her being found in California) or self-promotional. SportingFlyer talk 08:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: plenty of sources in the article establish notability beyond campaign coverage. – Lionel( talk) 08:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep I think the sourcing is here to meet GNG, but barely. A muslim Republican is pretty rare. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 12:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep: passes GNG.Dial911 ( talk) 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that you don't get to vote multiple times in the same discussion. You get one vote, not several. You're free to comment as many times as you like in a discussion, such as by responding to other people's comments, but you're not allowed to preface any followup comments with a bolded restatement of the keep vote you've already given. Bearcat ( talk) 18:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I get that. Thanks! Dial911 ( talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.